IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.26 of 2025 ------ 1. Mila Devi @ Pramila Devi 2. Vivek Singh 3. Pinki Kumari @ Pallavi Kumari .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Raju Singh .... .... .... Opposite Parties ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kumar Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated- 08-01-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Chanho P.S. Case No.116 of 2024 instituted under Sections 80/3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons have committed the dowry death of Kajal Kumari. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further submitted that the co-villager Sarita Devi has stated before the police that the petitioners are innocent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the deceased died within seven years of her marriage otherwise than under normal circumstances and there is direct allegation against the petitioners of demanding dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and she has been treated with cruelty in connection with the said demand. It is next submitted that in the FIR, there is direct allegation against the petitioners of having committed murder of the deceased by hanging her and, their custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/